IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 09 March 2022 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F7D3A10E9 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:32:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3anYffNTQ4us for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAE1E3A10E6 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 10:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC5338A54; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:42:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id tGwrZYgayfsq; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:42:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED8238A53; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:42:02 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1646851322; bh=2GQF002vNDPcnzkQKPdW//dNiX45uLufhhh1zAF3vT8=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=z55eMOUzhv4ZI/AVkI5WrOvhcJuWhBCPlDmumBDRx3gSdmB1Lytlc9UsXxuNM06SN vD6nRiLAdJ1FENM2dDVTa8uPn6v7lYzqYF0hrd+yygA5ME1ogHvvZBasjmiITD3jrZ m82fln8ObAVDqUhT6bW3AVdTWlwNo9Wre+JJQvMC+OYQJaMCbKuh2+PhdjBVBi1cVE Hjls6y/Z1ZdfeMSamzWXQsxuuvgCZV6Qk540+M8Dl25aO70hvf+kFvKtDEv3uLcQDy I2wFw9bNL2MwwNFufKe1tGlviJ/8dCW5lCMYoavDyD9z0XNm8yHsrq/3hAwVm7txlC QxWupfsxV2Rjg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19662559; Wed, 9 Mar 2022 13:32:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <57BC7375-B52A-4499-91DE-4D3D5F8D755B@mnot.net>
References: <20220228222932.825F33844270@ary.qy> <245C65D2-EC38-4C49-9CA0-3DD687CB37DA@mnot.net> <CA+9kkMAnmoJ0n3mPscZvc6kbyOZjQU78vb+iA0Pw5Qq=_kKZEw@mail.gmail.com> <57BC7375-B52A-4499-91DE-4D3D5F8D755B@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 13:32:35 -0500
Message-ID: <17731.1646850755@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/uaEdePU767m2hQFh1fY8mp_X4ck>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-koster-rep-06.txt> (Robots Exclusion Protocol) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 18:32:44 -0000

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
    ted> However, this spec reflects operations which have been
    ted> stable/backwards compatible for a very long time.  Given that, it is
    ted> important to the community which deploys this that it be fairly
    ted> difficult to amend.  One way to achieve that would have been to make
    ted> this standards track; that would require standards action to update
    ted> or obsolete it later.  When we discussed that back at the beginning
    ted> of this process, though, it was pretty clear  that some folks would
    ted> use the working group discussion around that to try to insert
    ted> functionality that would result in breaking changes.  While it would
    ted> have been kind of unlikely for any of those to win out against the
    ted> need for maintaining interoperability, the result would have been a
    ted> pretty big increase in the amount of effort needed to get this
    ted> published.

    > This is the rub -- depending on your definitions of "the community" and
    > "some folks" in the statement above, the outcome might be completely
    > reasonable and justified, or blatantly illegitimate.

I agree with Mark.

Ted seems to be describing some kind of tyranny of full consensus.

Had this gone into a WG, and the WG has been chartered not to break anything,
then I think that we would respect that, and the WG, and WG chairs refused,
then the IESG would make it the case.

So I don't really buy Ted's argument, sorry.

Based upon Ted's comments, I think that maybe we shouldn't publish this.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email